DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the process claimed in claims 1, 11, and 20, including the steps of receiving, selecting, assigning and establishing, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The applicant’s original disclosure, which dates back to application 14/793,284 filed on 7/7/2015, does not provide support for the currently claimed process covered by each of the independent claims.
Written Description Issue #1
Claims 1, 11, and 20 cover the following:
selecting, by the signaling controller, a media service server based on a capacity of the media service server and media processing capabilities required by the account;
The applicant did not disclose selecting a media server based on both the capacity of a media service server and the media processing capabilities required by an account. The only disclosure of selecting a media server is in paragraphs 15 and 85 of the originally filed disclosure. Paragraph 15 describes a load balancing scenario that has nothing to do with the capabilities required by an account and the load balancing of paragraph 15 is not disclosed as happening prior to assigning a network address to the media server, as in the third limitation, or the establishment of a media proxy between the client system and media service server, as in the fourth limitation. The load balancing in paragraph 15 happens after the proxy is established and not before, as covered by the claims. Paragraph 85 references selecting a media server, in the context of the description of the process shown in Figure 5. Paragraph 85 does not reference either the “capacity of the media service server” or “media processing capabilities required by the account” when selecting a media server. Paragraph 85 references “using at least one media state manager”, a “dispatcher”, and a “smart media control function” for performing the selection but none of these elements are disclosed as selecting “based on a capacity of the media service server and the media processing capabilities required by the account” as is evident from their descriptions in paragraph 23 and 37.
Written Description Issue #2
Claims 1, 11, and 20 cover the following:
assigning, by the signaling controller, a networking address to the media service server;
The applicant did not disclose a step of the signal controller assigning a networking address to a media service server. Paragraph 14 is the only paragraph which references an assignment but this describes addressing with respect to the proxy service and not the assignment of an address to a media service server. Paragraphs 54 and 96 show that media servers can have IP addresses but these paragraphs do not describe any step of “assigning a network address” to a media server. Paragraphs 54 and 96 also do not disclose anything about assigning a network address to a media server after a selection of the media server, as claimed in the preceding limitation. Paragraphs 38, 98, and 99 also discussing addressing but in the context of the media proxy and not an assignment of an address to a media service server, as claimed.
Written Description Issue #3
Claims 1, 11, and 20 cover the following:
establishing, by the signaling controller, a media proxy for communicating media streams between the client system and the media service server using the assigned networking address, the networking address being configured to implement a networking restriction on communication between the client system and the media service server.
The applicant did not disclose that an address of a media service server is “configured to implement a networking restriction on communication between the client system and the media service server” as claimed. The IP address of the media server disclosed in paragraphs 54 and 96 is not disclosed as being configured, in any manner, to implement any restriction between a client system that initiates a request (shown as client system 340 in Figure 5) and the media server with the IP address.
Written Description Issue #4
Claims 3 and 13 cover:
wherein the one or more static networking addresses comprise one or more static IP addresses configured to set a networking restriction on communication with the media proxy.
The applicant, in paragraph 14, discloses that a “static address functions to enable client applications to reliably set network restrictions to allow communication with the media proxy service 110”. This is a disclosure of the purpose of a “static address” but not any description of a “a static address” being “configured to set a networking restriction on communication with the media proxy”. The applicant does not disclose how an address itself would be configured to set a networking restriction. Instead, an address could be used in establishing a networking restriction.
Written Description Issue #5
Claims 7 and 17 cover:
receiving a media stream associated with the communication session; and augmenting, via the media proxy, the media stream using the media service server.
The applicant did not disclose the two steps of receiving a media stream associated with a communications session and then augmenting, via a proxy, the media stream using the media service server. Paragraph 17 is the only paragraph which mentions augmenting a stream. Paragraph 17 describes a general property of a media server but it does not describe the steps of receiving a media stream and then augmenting such a stream with the media service server “via a proxy”. There is no description of what element is “receiving” the media stream or in what context the media stream would be received in such a way that it would be augmented with the media service server “via a proxy”.
Written Description Issue #6
Claim 10 covers:
wherein the media proxy corresponds to a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based proxy.
The applicant did not disclose that a media proxy “corresponds” to an SIP-based proxy. Instead, the applicant, in paragraphs 15, 39, and 49, that the media proxy can be an SIP-based proxy. There is not support for the language used in the claim 10 which establishes two proxies because the applicant has only claimed a single proxy that can be SIP-based.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: it is unclear which of the “media proxy” or “media stream server” is performing the claimed augmenting in the final limitation, as the augmenting is performed “via the media proxy” but also “using the media service server”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0021530 by Garg et al.
As to claim 1, Garg teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a signaling controller (paragraph 17, example process), a communication initiation from a client system associated with an account of a multi-tenant communication platform (paragraph 18, step 202); selecting, by the signaling controller, a media service server based on a capacity of the media service server and media processing capabilities required by the account (paragraph 42, step 212); assigning, by the signaling controller, a networking address to the media service server (paragraph 69, the application server may be assigned the URI of a web server for backend processing); and establishing, by the signaling controller, a media proxy for communicating media streams between the client system and the media service server using the assigned networking address, the networking address being configured to implement a networking restriction on communication between the client system and the media service server (paragraph 69, client requests can be proxied, via web server 310, in web server farm 318, to application servers in farm 314).
As to claims 11 and 20, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
As to claim 2, the web server farm is a hierarchy accessible via a URL.
As to claim 4, see Figure 3, web server farm 318 is distinct from application server farm 314.
As to claim 5, see paragraph 69 and Figure 3.
As to claim 7, see paragraph 58-64.
As to claim 9, see paragraph 32.
As to claims 12, 14, 15, 17, and 19, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0021530 by Garg et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0120821 by Bendell.
As to claims 3 and 13, Garg teaches the subject matter of claims 1 and 11, respectively; however Garg does not explicitly teach the one or more static networking addresses comprise one or more static IP addresses configured to set a networking restriction on communication with the media proxy.
Bendell teaches the use of one or more static networking addresses with a proxy comprising one or more static IP addresses configured to set a networking restriction on communication with the media proxy (paragraph 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Garg regarding presenting information with media servers via a proxy with the teachings of Bendell regarding using a static IP address to set a network restriction on communication with a proxy because access the proxy with such an IP address would prevent direct access to higher layers of the network in Garg from a client.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0021530 by Garg et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0072608 by Peters et al.
As to claims 6 and 16, Garg teaches the subject matter of claims 1 and 11 wherein the media service server is a first media service server in a media service server cluster, respectively; however Garg does not explicitly teach detecting an operational failure associated with the first media service server; and reestablishing, by the signaling controller, the communication session between the client system and a second media service server in the media service server cluster using the media proxy.
Peters teaches a method of managing a media server comprising: detecting an operational failure associated with the first media service server (step 610 in Figure 6); and reestablishing, by the signaling controller, the communication session between the client system and a second media service server in the media service server cluster using the media proxy (steps 630, 640 and 650 in Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Garg regarding managing media servers with the teachings of Peters regarding managing redundancy for media servers because Peters provides a solution for how to handle a scenario where one of the application server of Garg fails.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0021530 by Garg et al..
As to claims 8 and 18, Garg teaches the subject matter of claims 7 and 17; however Garg does not explicitly teach that the media server provides the claimed functions.
Official notice is taken that the claimed functions in claims 8 and 18 are well known to provide by a media server.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Garg regarding managing media servers with the “providing” the claimed functions because the claims do not establish any context in which the claimed functions are “provided” so those of ordinary skill would know they could be “provided” by a server in the broad context of the claim. The applicant is encouraged to claim how the claimed services are related to the actual limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0021530 by Garg et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0381756 by Lotfallah et al.
As to claim 10, the subject matter of claim 1, however Garg does not explicitly teach wherein the media proxy corresponds to a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based proxy.
Lotfallah teaches a method managing media servers wherein the media proxy corresponds to a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based proxy (paragraph 143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Garg regarding managing media servers with the teachings of Lotfallah regarding having a media proxy correspond to a SIP proxy because such an approach would allow for the user of Garg to access data using a variety of protocols as described by paragraph 143 of Lotfallah.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
